In Monument Wars:
Washington, D.C., the National Mall, and the Transformation of the Memorial
Landscape, Kirk Savage plots the history of political and artistic
compromise through the development of the National Mall. Savage’s central theme is to examine how a
“monumental core” of Washington emerged, and explain how it “has come to define
the nation and to change the character of the national experience.” As it
pertains to historiography, Savage’s work presents an interesting challenge in
that history is typically about change. However, as he points out, public
monuments are fixed and inherently conservative unlike history itself.
Monuments tend to strip a historical figures or events from historical context
and deduct them to simplified patriotic lessons. At the same time monuments
help to form the core of the American identity that has “endured through trial
and tribulation.”
The capital city, first planned out by Pierre Charles L
‘Enfant, got off to a rough start. L ‘Enfant’s great metropolis was anything
but. Upon visiting, Charles Dickens referred to it as a “monument to a deceased
project.” Early struggles to build a monument to George Washington reflected
political turmoil, and in general, a struggling capital of the republic. It
would not be until the United States had begun to expand westward, when the
memorial landscape, originally envisioned by L ‘Enfant, would begin to take
shape. The promise of expansion of the United States to the Pacific meant a
great deal in terms of creating an expansive republic and for social, economic,
and scientific advancements. During this time, the plans for the city centered
on the Capital Building, an ever-changing proposal for the Washington Monument,
and the Smithsonian. Interspersed throughout the public grounds were statues to
commemorate Revolution Era heroes. With the ideals of the Revolution on display,
it is not insignificant that Washington, D.C. remained an important port for
the slave trade.
Savage traces the change of monuments as representing great
men to being representative of the common soldier. This change began following the Civil War, but
the Senate Park Commission plan of 1901 set it in full motion with the
reconstruction of the National Mall dominated by the Washington, Lincoln, and
Grant memorials. To complete the landscape of the mall, the Vietnam Veteran’s
Memorial and the World War II memorial specifically focus on the common
soldier, with the Vietnam Memorial being ever-changing as individuals leave
mementos in remembrance. While the Vietnam Memorial lists the names of those
who died in service and makes no judgment about the war itself, the World War
II Memorial represents soldiers who died with gold stars and includes many
references to the great triumph obtained by the United States. According to
Savage, “The Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial suggested the limits of American
military power; the World War II Memorial nostalgically celebrates the nation’s
military supremacy.”
Perhaps the change of memorializing the common soldier has
become so engrained in the American fabric and the National Mall due to the
historical closeness of World War II and Vietnam. Not to mention the current
realities we face in regard to the threat of global terror. As our society and
place in the world change, Savage suggest that the National Mall should be open
to another paradigm shift after a ten year moratorium on building and an
opportunity for designers and artists to propose new designs for the landscape
and install new temporary monuments. This would in essence create a public
space that is fluid like history.
